Green House Gasses Fact or Fiction?

Question

If these so called greenhouse gasses are made up of mainly carbon dioxide, a gas that plants use in the same manner that we use oxygen, would that not mean that every plant on the planet would benifit from the increase in c02 ? If so, then wouldnt the plants on the planet produce more Oxygen? Is this so called global warming just a fact of nature ie. we are finally exiting the ice age and now the planet is going back to the original way it was? warm enough to sustain coldblooded creatures such as the dinosaurs? This is what I believe to be fact...Our governments are just using the global warming scare to control us more...thats it.
Further more, all of our destinations are the same, one day we will all draw that losing card and cash in. So instead of causing more worry in these already scary times, realise that this world is going to warm up with or without the humans on board. Time to take your heads out of the sand and wake up to the governments scare tactics.

Answer 1

According to Nasa studies of human space flight requirements, one human emits approximately 1kg of carbon-dioxide per day by breathing. So, for the current population of the earth, breathing produces 660,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per day or 241 million metric tons per year. There are approximately 5,500 species of animals on earth and, if we assume that humans are "average" in their numbers and carbon dioxide emissions through respiration, then all of the animals breathing on the planet produce about 1,300,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.

Conversely, the burning of fossil fuels produces about 27,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year -- 50 times less than the respiration of animals.

So, if we completely eliminated the burning of fossil fuels, we would only reduce carbon dioxide production by 2%.

*** addendum ***

Gunny-T is exactly right. Respiration is really a minor natural source of carbon dioxide. I really should have said that elimination of fossil fuel use would only be 2% with respect to respiration. And probably 20 times less than a standard deviation of all natural carbon dioxide production.

*** addendum 2 ***

ftm_poolshark makes a number of fairly common observations that should be addressed, so here goes:

1. (S)he depreciates the viability of any of Inhofe's observations because Inhofe receives funding from a certain constituency. The fact that Inhofe has called attention to these counter arguments and not actually developed them is ample reason to discard this argument. However, if one is required to discard all hypotheses if any monetary gain is associated with them, then the entire global warming argument must be discarded since virtually all of the researchers in the field owe their entire livelihood to the proposition and all of their future income hinges on whether their findings support the need for further research.

2. This is really an extension of 1. ftm finds great fault in the "fossil fuel corporations" supporting their contention that human-caused global warming is bunk. But (S)he finds no fault in foreign governments, researchers, etc. all having a potential financial benefit from the acceptance of such a proposition. Such inconsistency in the application of logic negates any such argument.

3. ftm references the temperature data over the last 1000 years which, although interesting, identifies no cause. In fact, rather simple experiments without any possibility of argument against their findings show that the solubility of carbon dioxide in sea water is inversely dependent on temperature. That is, as temperature rises, the sea releases great quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Oak Ridge provides calculations that for every degree of temperature change, there is a 4% loss of CO2 solubility in sea water. From ftm's link to temperature and other sources, there appears to be a fairly consistent 0.2 degree standard deviation in Northern Hemisphere temperature. This is the "noise" in the data. If one equates this to the variation of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the variation in sea water solubility, the "noise" in atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 30 billion metric tons. For those of you not yet asleep, that means that the total fossil-fuel-use production of CO2 is approximately equal to the noise in the solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans. Which means that it is impossible to ascribe that fossil-fuel use to anything related to the atmosphere including its temperature.

4. Related to the temperature plot referenced by ftm is the Vostok historical CO2 and temperature record (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg). It is interesting to note the sequence throughout this record. Note that the temperature rises first, then the CO2 rises. The temperature falls first and then the CO2 falls. It appears that the temperature is affecting the CO2 and not the other way around. This is, of course, what one expects from the solubility argument above.

5. ftm, finally, makes a rather odd statement differentiating "natural" carbon dioxide from other carbon dioxide. This attempt to somehow classify one molecule as being better than another based on its origin is as scientifically naive as it is bigoted.

Answer 2

Good Job Dr T.. But there are some highly under-reported issues regarding greenhouse gas concentrations. Undersea volcanic action is producing mega-volumes of Co2, probably one of the contributing factors to the current atmospheric Co2 increase. The one you never hear about is that the warming of seawater due to this volcanic activity is causing a major increase in the decay of Methane Hydrate (naturally frozen on the ocean floors) into methane gas, which is adding to the atmospheric greenhouse phenomenon. Methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas than Co2.
All those concerned politicians should be legislating against THOSE greenhouse gas sources... Mandate stuff like tossing all your spare ice cubes in the ocean... you know... something meaningful.

Answer 3

Y got it right and it is not the government doing anything except they feel they need to move in that direction. They have drug their feet until they are tired. I normally tell them to study plants and photosynthesis.
Great job and the plants the more CO2 they get the more food they have . The plants take in the CO2 and they hold on to the C and give us back the O2. but that is the first cycle of life,now follow the C cycle . The plants grow big to handle all the CO2 we produce. Then winter comes along and kills the leaves which die and float down the river to the delta where they decompose to form Gas ,Oil ,and coal after a long time.

Answer 4

You probably have your mind made up and will ignore this, but here goes anyway:

From a book published by Harvard University Press: "In 2001 a panel representing virtually all the world's governments and climate scientists announced that they had reached a consensus: the world was warming at a rate without precedent during at least the last ten millennia, and that warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases from human activity." (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/WEADIS.html )

NASA says, "the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is real and its overall effects are detrimental" (http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Global_Warming.pdf , page 6 )

In fact, it is so detremental that the Attorney General of California has filed suit against the 6 auto manufacturers and 5 utilities here in CA. (http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/cms06/06-082_0a.pdf?PHPSESSID=bcafe4e63eecea93153f25e6fe5bc9ba , http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=709&year=2004&month=7&PHPSESSID=5fa0700eb86a845983a94e26ab86a46e ) for ignoring the IPCC statements, stating in the lawsuit, "Defendants knew or should have known, and know or should know, that their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and to the resulting injuries and threatened injuries to California, its citizens and residents, environment, and economy."

"CapNemo" is touting “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism” compiled by United States Senator James Inhofe, as a reason to ignore the global warming threat. "The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe There really is very little controversy in the scientific community on this issue. There's a small handful of vocal people, many of whom have strong ties to the oil industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics ) who are keeping the debate alive.

Here's a documentary showing "how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences”. (The Denial Machine: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html )

About the bogus volcano issue, "Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!” http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Average Northern Hemisphere Temperatures for last 1000 years:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/images/subject/other/figures/mannetal_nh1000.jpg

--------------------------

Dr.T. may have his facts more or less right, but s/he draws the wrong conclusion. Any CO2 produced by respiration is juts part of the natural cycle. The extra 2% (or 4% where I read it) from deforestation and burning fossil fuel is what's causing the problem. This extra 4% build up year after year. After, say, 50 years, we really have a problem.

Answer 5

For a thoughtful article on the subject matter of your question I refer you to:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/01/24/minority_view